Christian Cyclopedia

Lutheran Confessions.

The Luth. Reformation* caused the confessional principle, which had been dead for many cents., to revive.

A. General.

1. During the early days of the Reformation, M. Luther* and his writings soon came to be rallying points for his followers. The 1st books to organize Luth. doctrines were the Catechisms of 1529, pub. for instructing congs. (see Catechisms, Luther's).

2. Hist. Background of the Augsburg Confession.

a. After the 1529 Diet of Speyer,* Philip* of Hesse took the initiative in trying to unite, in a pol. fed. for mutual defense, those who had protested the autocratic action of Charles* V. Philip of Hesse and Jakob Sturm* united Saxony and Hesse with certain S Ger. Ev. cities (with Ulm, Strasbourg, and Nürnberg as nucleus) in a fed. created April 22, 1529, in a secret agreement at Speyer. To clear the way for possible inclusion of Swiss in the fed., Philip of Hesse initiated plans for settling the dispute bet. Luther and H. Zwingli* at a colloquy in Marburg (see [b]; Luther, Controversies of, g).

b. Pol. disintegration. After the Diet of Speyer, P. Melanchthon,* who had kept silent regarding differences bet. Ger. Luths. and Swiss, had a change of heart and tried to thwart the fed. Luther also opposed a fed. without confessional unity. Hans von Minckwitz, representative of John* the Constant at a meeting in Rotach June 7, 1529, which had been set at Speyer for final negotiations concerning the fed., succeeded in postponing action on the fed. to Schwabach August 24; this meeting was later reset for October 16, when the 17 Schwabach Arts., prepared bet. ca. July 25 and September 14 by Luther et al. and reflected in the Marburg Arts., were first presented, with another meeting set to consider them at Schmalkalden at the end of November Meantime, at a meeting of representatives of John the Constant, George* of Brandenburg-Ansbach, and Philip of Hesse in Saalfeld July 8, the representatives of George of Brandenburg-Ansbach successfully demanded, as prerequisite for fed.: adoption of a uniform confession, uniform ch. order, and other practical regulations; this helped give direction to the Schwabach Arts. Meanwhile also, the Colloquy of Marburg (see [a]) had been head October 1–4. Marburg Arts. 1–14 list the doctrines on which the Sacramentarians and the Luths. apparently agreed; agreement was in evidence also in the 1st part of the 15th, the last part of which, however, reads in part: “We are not agreed as to whether the true [real: Ger. wahre] body and blood of Christ are bodily [corporally, really; Ger. leiblich] present in the bread and wine.” By 1530 Zwingli's writings showed that he had a spirit very different from that of Luther. The Colloquy of Marburg failed to provide a basis for including Swiss in the fed. (see [a]). Demand for confessional unity was asserting itself over demand for fed. This trend issued at Schmalkalden at the end of November and beginning of December in defeat of the fed. Nürnberg and Brandenburg accepted the Schwabach Arts.; Strasbourg and Ulm rejected them; all 4 refused to enter the fed., which thus was wrecked.

c. In January 1530 Charles* V issued a summons for a Diet at Augsburg. John the Constant asked Luther, Melanchthon, J. Bugenhagen,* and J. Jonas* to deliberate regarding arts. of faith and usage. The result of their deliberations, in the hands of John the Constant at Torgau by March 27: Torgau Arts. (MS discovered at Weimar 1830), divided into an introd. and 10 arts.: human doctrine and human order; marriage of priests; both forms; mass; confession: jurisdiction; ordination; vows: invocation of saints: Ger. song. Because Luther was under the ban.* he did not attend the Diet but spent the time at Coburg. Since the summons stated that “every man's opinions, thoughts, and notions” were to be heard, Melanchthon, using the Torgau Arts. as guide, prepared a statement of the Luth. position and a preface. Abusive arts. (404) by J. Eck* moved Melanchthon to include a summary of doctrine based on the Schwabach Arts. Melanchthon changed the Confession repeatedly before its presentation. John the Constant sent it to Luther May 11 for consideration and possible revisions; Luther returned it May 15. Various things (e.g., the harsh message of Charles V to John the Constant on May 27, which included a ban on ev. preaching in Augsburg [repeated June 15]; the demand of Charles V that the Luths. join the Corpus Christi procession June 16) led to a rewriting of the preface so as to indicate that it was being submitted by others besides John the Constant. The Ger. draft of the AC was read Saturday afternoon, June 25, 1530, “in the lower large room,” by C. Beyer*; then the AC was given in both Ger. and Lat. to Charles V by G. Brück.* There are variants bet. the Lat. and Ger. texts; in some cases (e.g., VII 2, where the Lat. doctrina is rendered by the Ger. gepredigt) the one language elucidates the other. Following are listed as signatories in Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelischlutherischen Kirche, 6th ed. (Göttingen, 1967), pp. 136–137, which notes that complete certainty in the listing has not been est.: John the Constant and John* Frederick of Saxony, George* of Brandenburg-Ansbach, Ernest* and Francis (younger brother of Ernest; d. 1549) of Lüneburg, Philip of Hesse, Wolfgang* of Anhalt, and representatives of Nürnberg and Reutlingen. Before the close of the Diet, representatives of Frankfurt am Main, Heilbronn, Kempten, Weissenburg, and Windsheim also signed.

3. Defense of the Confession. June 27 the RC estates resolved to answer the AC. Their reply tried to show that the matters that were true in the AC were taken from RCm, that the AC was not in harmony with statements of Ev. leaders, that the heresies in the AC had been condemned long ago, that other condemned heresies were held by Luther and his followers, and that Luther was the cause of the Anabap. and Capernaitic* heresies. The RC estates rejected it July 15 because of its harshness, and the Confutatio pontificia (also known as Responsio pontificia) was prepared and read to the Diet August 3. During the ensuing weeks, Luths. were subjected to tremendous pressure and intrigue. The Confutatio was not given to the Luths.. Melanchthon prepared a reply (Prima delineatio apologiae; not the one in the Book* of Concord) based on notes taken by J. Camerarius* during the reading of the Confutatio. When the imperial recess September 22 declared the AC “for good reasons answered and rejected by the Holy Scriptures and other writings,” the Luths. through Brück presented the Prima delineatio apologiae, but it was refused by Charles V. After receiving a copy of the Confutatio, Melanchthon continued work and pub. Apologia confessionis as a private document. It was signed 1537 with the AC at Schmalkalden (see B 2). It is a refutation of the Confutatio and a defense and amplification of the AC. The sequence of arts. follows in gen. that of the AC (see A 4) and the Confutatio. Arts. not disputed were treated briefly; those dealing with similar subject matter were combined. The Ap has the double value of theol. thoroughness and the warmth of a living confession. Luther endorsed both the AC and the Ap

4. Outstanding AC characteristics: objective universality, emphasis on personal salvation through justification by faith alone, air of reverent freedom, and spirit of catholic continuity. It claims to present nothing new but only to reemphasize the doctrines taught by the true ch. through the ages.

AC arts. I–XXI treat basic doctrine, XXII–XXVIII abuses corrected: I. God; II. Original Sin; III. The Son of God; IV. Justification; V. The Office of the Ministry; VI. The New Obedience; VII. The Church; VIII. What the Church Is; IX. Baptism; X. The Holy Supper of Our Lord; XI. Confession; XII. Repentance; XIII. The Use of the Sacraments; XIV. Order in the Church; XV. Church Usages; XVI. Civil Government; XVII. The Return of Christ to Judgment; XVIII. Freedom of the Will; XIX. The Cause of Sin; XX. Faith and Good Works; XXI. The Cult of Saints: XXII. Both Kinds in the Sacrament; XXIII. The Marriage of Priests; XXIV. The Massachusetts; XXV. Confession; XXVI. The Distinction of Foods; XXVII. Monastic Vows; XXVIII. The Power of Bishops.

5. Subsequent Hist. of the AC. In Germany* the AC became the confessional basis of the Schmalkaldic* League 1531 and was adopted by nearly all Ev. Ger. within ca. 15 yrs. after its presentation. In 1551 the Luths. asked Melanchthon and J. Brenz* to work out confessions supplementary to the AC for the Council of Trent* (Confessio Saxonica [Saxon Confession], also called Repetitio confessionis Augustanae; Confessio Virtembergica [Württemberg Confession]). In Austria* the AC was early received by many; official toleration of its adherents was granted 1568. In Boh. many accepted the AC soon after 1530; it gained recognition among the Unitas Fratrum by way of the “Boh. Confession” (see Bohemia, Lutheran Theology in, 4). In Silesia official recognition of the AC was obtained 1609 by the Charter of Rudolf* II. In Hungary* parts of the AC are reflected in the Confessio Pentapolitana (named after 5 free cities of Upper Hung.: Eperjes [Eperies; Presov], Bartfeld [Bardejov; Bártfa], Klein-Zeben [Kis-Szeben; Sabinov], Kaschau [Kosice; Kassa], and Leutschau [Levoca; Löcse]). In Slovakia* and in Yugoslavia* several groups accepted the AC. In Transylvania* the AC was accepted mostly by Saxons. In 1572 Lucas Ungleich (1526–1600) presented a compilation of the AC (Formula pii consensus inter pastores ecclesiarum Saxonicarum) which was adopted in addition to the AC. Kleinpolen (Little Poland; SE, mountainous part of the former kingdom of Poland; included, e.g., Krakau, Sandomir, Zator, Oswiecim [Auschwitz], Lublin, Red Russ., Podolia, Belz, Kiev), dominated 1530–55 by Wittenberg, adhered to the AC till 1555, but with increasing Ref. tendencies; Grosspolen (Greater Poland; NW, plain part of the former kingdom of Poland; included, e.g., Posen and Gostyn) used 2 Polish translations of the AC: that which Albert* of Prussia had made and that pub. by Martin Florus Quiatkowski; the 1st Luth. syn. pledged itself to the AC 1565; see also Poland; Reformation, Lutheran, 12. In Lithuania* a small minority accepted the AC. In Latvia* acceptance of the AC dates from Reformation times. After the influence of N. Hemming(sen)* was overcome, loyalty to the AC and SC became strong in Den. (see Denmark, Lutheranism in, 5) and Norw. (see Norway, Lutheranism in) in the last part of the 16th century. Iceland also accepted the AC (see Iceland, 3). The AC was not formally accepted in Swed. until 1593, when it, with the Bible and the ecumenical symbols, became the confessional basis of the Swed. Ch. and the 1571 ch. order was confirmed (see also Sweden, Lutheranism in, 1, 2). In Livonia and Estonia* the Diet of Reval 1524 decided for the Reformation, and use of the AC was a matter of course. In Russia* the AC became known through the Baltic Provinces. An Eng. tr. of the AC and the Ap, by R. Taverner,* was printed in London 1536 under the title The Confessyon of the Fayth of the Germaynes. 16 arts. (Wittenberg Articles; Repetitio Augustanae) agreed on by a delegation of Henry* VIII and Luths. (Luther, Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, Jonas, Cruciger*) in spring 1536 exerted (with the AC) a lasting influence on Angl. confessions and demonstrated what concessions the Luths. were ready to make to win a country like Eng. (see also England, B 2–3). Lutheranism came to the Netherlands* by 1518, but persecution beginning in the 1550s left only a few who adhered to the AC (1st Dutch version pub. 1543 in Wesel). Two Fr. translations were made at the time of the Augsburg Diet; others followed (see also France, 15). The AC may have been tr. in Sp. in the 16th c., but did not become somewhat gen. available in print till the 20th c. (see also Spain, 3). Two It. translations of the AC were made soon after the Augsburg Diet: one for the emp., the other for the pope; a 1562 It. tr. of the AC and the Ap was made for Dalmatia, Istria, and hart of Carniola but made no lasting impression. The AC was pub. in Gk. 1559. See also Eastern Orthodox Churches. 5.

6. The AC is used in N, Cen., and S. Am. Luth. pastors who came to Am. in the 17th c. were pledged to the AC, and their congs. bound by it. The Pennsylvania and New York Ministeriums, which did not have the AC in their constitutions, required the pledge at ordination. In the 18th and 19th cents. this pledging became an empty form due to Pietism,* rationalism,* and sectarianism. Reaction to the Prussian* Union and the coming of Old* Luths. brought renewed emphasis on the AC. The Definite* Syn. Platform encountered decisive opposition. Free* Luth. Conferences led to formation of the Synodical* Conf. Emphasis on confessionalism was also felt in formation 1867 of the General* Council of the Ev. Luth. Ch. in (N) Am., which pledged itself to the Book* of Concord. T. E. Schmauk,* H. E. Jacobs,* C. Porterfield Krauth* were esp. active in the interest of confessionalism. In The General* Syn. of the Ev. Luth. Ch. in the USA there was also a trend toward stricter confessionalism which made possible the formation of The United* Luth. Ch. in Am.

7. Other Continents. Luths. in Afr. use the AC (tr., e.g., into Zulu, Twi, Shambala, Swahili). Various versions have been used in India (e.g., Tamil, Telugu, Eng., Hindi, Santali). Chinese translations include wen-li ca. 1914, Mandarin 1928. The AC has been tr. several times into Jap. The AC came to Australia 1836 (see Australia, B 1).

B. 1530–46.

1. A conference was held 1536 in the home of Luther bet. Luths. and Reformed. As a result, the Wittenberg* Concord was signed by Reformed (M. Bucer,* W. F. Capito,* M. Alber,* M. Frecht,* J. Otter,* W. Musculus,* et al.) and Luths. (M. Luther, P. Melanchthon, J. Bugenhagen, J. Jonas, Cruciger,* J. Menius,* F. Myconius,* U. Rhegius,* G. Spalatin,* et al.). See also Union Movements, 3.

2. June 2, 1536, Paul* III called a gen. council to meet at Mantua, It., on May 23, 1537, for the extirpation of heresy. In December 1536 John* Frederick asked Luther to write a positional statement to be reviewed and approved also by other Luth. theologians. It was signed at Wittenberg by Luther, Jonas, Cruciger, Bugenhagen, N. v. Amsdorf,* Melanchthon (with the reservation that the pope might hold primacy jure humano), J. Agricola,* G. Spalatin; delivered to John Frederick January 3, 1537. To help prepare for a possible gen. ch. council, John Frederick called for Luth. theologians to attend a meeting of the Schmalkaldic* League which had been considered for January 8 but postponed to February 7. Because of illness Luther could not attend this meeting, February 7–23, 1537, at Schmalkalden, which reaffirmed AC and AP but did not act officially on Luther's arts., though most men present signed them. In lieu of Luther's arts.. Melanchthon wrote Tractatus [Tract; Treatise], which was signed by all theologians present and which dealt with the power and primacy of the pope and with the power and jurisdiction of bps. Luther reed. his arts. and had them pub. in spring 1538; they grew in esteem, came to be known as Schmalkaldic Arts., and were pub. 1580 in the Book of Concord, with Melanchthon's Tractatus appended. SA Part I treats “the sublime articles of the divine majesty.” Part II: 1. Christ and Faith; 2. Mass and Invocation of Saints; 3. Chapters and Monasteries; 4. Papacy. Part III: 1. Sin; 2. Law; 3. Repentance; 4. Gospel; 5. Baptism; 6. The Sacrament of the Altar; 7. The Keys; 8. Confession; 9. Excommunication; 10. Ordination and Vocation; 11. The Marriage of Priests; 12. The Church; 13. How Man Is Justified before God, and His Good Works; 14. Monastic Vows; 15. Human Traditions. In April 1537 the council set for Mantua was postponed to November 1, 1537; later it was reset for May 1, 1538, Vicenza, It., and finally indefinitely suspended May 21, 1539. See also Vergerio, Pietro Paolo (2d entry).

3. While the AC was being est., Melanchthon made alterations in its wording. The 1540 Variata caused particular concern. See also Union Movements. 3. Agricola had jeopardized the Luth. position on Law and Gospel (see Antinomian Controversy). By 1543 Melanchthon had gone so far as to rework, for the reformation of Cologne, arts. in a document by Bucer, for which Bucer alone, however, wrote the art. on the Lord's Supper.

C. 1546–80.

1. After Luther's death the storm broke over the Ev. Luth. chs. South Ger. and most of N Ger. were conquered by Charles V. The Augsburg Interim (see Interim, I), which sacrificed the doctrine of justification, recognized 7 sacraments and transubstantiation, and interpreted the mass as a thank offering, was accepted by most of the crushed Prot. princes. Melanchthon opposed the Augsburg Interim but soon became fearful and yielded. The Leipzig Interim (see Interim, II) compromised the doctrine of justification by faith; reintrod. RC ceremonies at Baptism, and Corpus Christi; and included other rules favoring RCm. Controversies which arose chiefly out of aberrations of Melanchthon's followers and the extremism of M. Flacius* Illyricus et al. include Adiaphoristic* 1548, Osiandrian* 1549, Majoristic* 1551, Crypto-Calvinistic* 1552, Synergistic* 1555, Second Antinomian* 1556. The attempt to adjust controversies by academic disputations, to fix religion by dogmatic formulations, and to restore peace by the Frankfurt* Recess 1558 and Naumburg* Diet 1561, together with conflict regarding the Variata, led to at least 20 Luth. Confessions bet. 1546 and the adoption of the FC Best-known: Corpus Philippicum 1560 (doctrinal writings of Melanchthon), also called Misnicum (because it was to be used in ecclesiis et scholis regionum Saxonicarum et Misnicarum, subditarum ditioni Principis Electoris Saxoniae) and Wittenbergense; issued under the title Corpus* doctrinae christianae.

2. In 1567 Jakob Andreä* was commissioned to draw up a formula of harmony. 1574 Elector August* took sharp measures against the Philippists.* See also Crypto-Calvinistic Controversy. 1573 Andreä had published “Six Christian Sermons.” which, at the suggestion of M. Chemnitz,* was rev. into the Swabian Concordia (11 arts.). Rev. by D. Chytraeus* and Chemnitz, it was known as the Swabian-Saxon Concordia. L. Osiander* the elder and B. Bidembach* prepared a formula adopted at Maulbronn January 19, 1576. A meeting at Torgau May 28–June 7, 1576, attended by N. Selnecker,* Andreä,* Chemnitz,* Chytraeus,* A. Musculus,* C. Cornerus,* et al., formulated the Torgau Book on the basis of the Swabian-Saxon Concordia and the Maulbronn Formula. After Elector August had received criticisms of the work, final rev. was made 1577 at Bergen by Chemnitz, Andreä, Selnecker, Musculus, Cornerus, and Chytraeus. This Bergen Book (Solid Declaration; Thorough Declaration), together with Andreä's Epitome, was finished by May 28, 1577. These 2 works were brought together as the Formula of Concord in the Book of Concord (with a preface prepared by the theologians and signed by the princes), which appeared officially at Dresden June 25, 1580 (see Book of Concord). The Epitome (1) defines the state of controversy, (2) affirms the true doctrine, (3) rejects false doctrines. The Solid Declaration omits this division and discusses matters at length. Both have introductions. Contents of the FC: Introd. confesses the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and practice and also accepts the 3 ecumenical creeds and Luth. confessions previously adopted; Art. I: Original Sin: II: Free Will or Human Powers: III: The Righteousness of Faith before God; IV: Good Works; V: Law and Gospel; VI: The Third Function of the Law; VII: The Holy Supper; VIII: The Person of Christ; IX: Christ's Descent into Hell; X: The Ecclesiastical Rites that Are Called Adiaphora or Things Indifferent; XI: Eternal Foreknowledge and Divine Election; XII: Other Factions and Sects which Never Accepted the Augsburg Confession. The FC was signed by 3 electors, 2 bps., 18 princes, 24 counts, 4 barons, 35 cities, and nearly 8,200 clerics, teachers, and others by 1580.

D. Subscription.

1. Speaking of the September 22, 1530, Reichsabschied (imperial edict; recess), Luther expressed the view that all who hold the AC, whether openly or secretly, must be regarded and treated as brothers (St. L. ed., XVI, 1538). This view was reemphasized by C. F. W. Walther* (e.g., “Urtheil einer Conferenz,” Der Lutheraner, XII [July 1, 1856], 181–182; cf. A. B., “Eine freie Conferenz,” L. u. W., II [March 1856], 84–85, and ed. comment 85–86). Fellowship on basis of the Luth. Confessions was stressed also by C. Porterfield Krauth,* H. E. Jacobs.* T. E. Schmauk,* et al. Acceptance of the AC indicates that one has the Luth. altitude on the great fundamentals (sola Scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide) and by conscientious study will find himself in agreement with the doctrinal content of the other symbols. This does not imply that he reaches absolute and errorless perfection in exegesis, doctrine, life. Cf. “Von dem Namen 'Lutheraner,' ” Der Lutheraner, I (September 1, 1844), 2–4; “Antwort auf die neueste Vertheidigung der Union,” Der Lutheraner, I (June 18, 1845), 82–84; “Vorwort der Redaktion zum dreizehnten Jahrgang des 'Lutheraner,' ” Der Lutheraner, XIII (August 26, 1856), 1–3; Verhandlungen der dreizehnten Jahresversammlung des Westlichen Districts der Deutschen Ev.-Luth. Synode von Missouri, Ohio, u. a. Staaten im Jahre 1867 (at Chicago, Illinois) (St. Louis, Missouri), pp. 31–33.

2. In the 17th and 18th c. the Luth. symbols were not mentioned in some Luth. constitutions in the US. H. M. Mühlenberg* tried to rally Luths. around the AC and other Luth. symbols. After his death 1787, a trend away from confessionalism lasted into the 19th c. The Tennessee Syn. (see Henkels, The, 2, 3; United Lutheran Church in America, The, Synods of, 10, 16) insisted on strict confessionalism. As the symbols came into prominence, distinctions bet. fundamental* and nonfundamental doctrines were reemphasized. The Definite* Syn. Platform tried to eliminate certain doctrines which had been regarded as nonfundamental and rejected by some.

3. The distinction bet. arts. of faith by which the subscriber is bound and ordinary factual statements was prominently elaborated in Am. by C. F. Schaeffer,* “Symbolic Theology,” The Evangelical Review, I (April 1850), 457–483. For a Mo. Syn. statement that since the symbols are confessions of the faith or of the teaching of the ch., the subscriber binds himself to all the doctrine therein contained but not to hist. references, matters belonging to science, logic, method of presentation, adiaphora, etc. see [C. F. W. Walther; cf. Der Lutheraner, XXIII (May 1, 1867), 130, col. 2, footnote] “Referat über die Frage: Warum sind die symbolischen Bücher unserer Kirche von denen, welche Diener derselben werden wollen, nicht bedingt, sondern unbedingt zu unterschreiben?” in Verhandlungen der Vierten Sitzungen des westlichen Distrikts der Deutschen Evang.-Luth. Synode von Missouri, Ohio und andern Staaten, im Jahre 1858 (St. Louis, 1858), pp. 7–25, reprint. without footnotes in Der Lutheraner, XIV (August 10, 1858), 201–206, tr. and condensed by A. W. C. Guebert, “Why Should Our Pastors, Teachers and Professors Subscribe Unconditionally to the Symbolical Writings of Our Church,” CTM, XVIII (1947), 241–253. In the same art. Walther indicates that the symbols should be accepted quia (“because”), not quatenus (“insofar as”), they agree with Scripture.

4. The major Luth. syns. in Am. require subscription to all Luth. symbols. Some Luths. subscribe only to the AC and SC. EL

See also Altar Fellowship.

Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, 6th rev. ed. (Göttingen, 1967); J. M. Reu, The Augsburg Confession: A Collection of Sources with An Historical Introduction (Chicago, 1930); Die symbolischen Bücher der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche, ed. J. T. Müller, 11th ed. (Gütersloh, 1912): H. L. J. Heppe, Die Bekenntnisschriften der altprotestantischen Kirche Deutschlands (Kassel, 1855); T. G. Tappert, “The Symbols of the Church,” What Lutherans Are Thinking, ed. E. C. Fendt (Columbus, 1947); M. Loy, The Augsburg Confession (Columbus, 1908); T. E. Schmauk and C. T. Benze, The Confessional Principle and the Confessions of the Lutheran Church as Embodying the Evangelical Confession of the Christian Church (Philadelphia, 1911); G. J. Fritschel, The Formula of Concord: Its Origin and Contents (Philadelphia, 1916); J. L. Neve, Story and Significance of The Augsburg Confession on Its Four Hundredth Anniversary (Burlington, Iowa, 1930); C. Bergendoff, The Making and Meaning of the Augsburg Confession (Rock Island, Illinois, 1930); C. H. Little, Lutheran Confessional Theology (St. Louis, 1943); V. Ferm, The Crisis in American Lutheran Theology (New York, 1927); C. Mauelshagen, American Lutheranism Surrenders to Forces of Conservatism (Athens, Georgia, 1936); E. Schlink, Theology of the Lutheran Confessions, tr. P. F. Koehneke and H. J. A. Bouman (Philadelphia, 1961); F. Brunstäd, Theologie der lutherischen Bekenntnisschriften (Gütersloh, 1951); H. Volz, Luthers Schmalkaldische Artikel und Melanchthons Tractatus de potestate papae (Gotha, [1931]); H. Fagerberg, Die Theologie der lutherischen Bekenntnisschriften von 1529 bis 1537, tr. from the Swed. MS by G. Klose (Göttingen, 1965), Eng. tr. from the Swed. MS by G. J. Lund, A New Look at the Lutheran Confessions (1529–1537) (St. Louis, 1972); J. Meyer Historischer Kommentar zu Luthers Kleinem Katechismus (Gütersloh, 1929); W. Arndt, “The Pertinency and Adequacy of the Lutheran Confessions,” CTM, XX (September 1949), 674–700; A. C. Piepkorn, “Suggested Principles for a Hermeneutics of the Lutheran Symbols,” CTM, XXIX (January 1958), 1–24; The Church and the Confessions, ed. V. Vajta and H. Weissgerber (Philadelphia, 1963).

Am. eds.: The Christian Book of Concord, tr. Ambrose and Socrates Henkel, J. Stirewalt, H. Wetzel, J. R. Moser, and D. Henkel (Solomon D. Henkel and Bros., New Market, Virginia, 1851); The Book of Concord, ed. H. E. Jacobs, 2 vols. (Philadelphia, 1882–83); Concordia Triglotta (St. Louis, 1921); The Book of Concord, tr. and ed. T. G. Tappert, J. Pelikan, R. H. Fischer, A. C. Piepkorn (Philadelphia, 1959).